The quality of life of patients after hip replacement with use of MAYO prosthesis and kapoplastic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Total hip arthroplasty has become one of the most successful surgery procedure used in the treatment of osteoarthritis. More and more active, young patients undergo primary hip replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of Mayo prosthesis and hip resurfacing on health-related quality of life. Materials and methods. The study was conducted at the Clinic of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Jagiellonian University, Collegium Medicum. The study involved 38 patients: (X – age: 55±8,5), who underwent hip replacement surgery in 2005-2009. The modified SF-36 (Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form), WOMAC (Western Ontario And McMaster Universities) and WHORQOL-100 questionnaire was used for research. The Quality of life was investigated before and after surgery. Results. After operation the improvement was observed in the following domains: physical, psychological, level of independence, social relations, ability to work, personal social relations, positive feelings and the global quality of life. Conclusions. Despite the short follow-up, Mayo prosthesis and hip resurfacing already represent valuable alternative for younger patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".